Third Person Question

[Bill Cross]

Re: Third Person Question

1st person interpretation is quite possibly the worst method of attempting to interact with and educate the public.... The majority of the public is not well read in history, and 1st person impressions make them feel inadequate, dumb and ignorant; not the state of mind that a pupil should be in for effective learning! ...all too often we alienate the public with strict adherence to 1st person interpretation.
-Tad

Tad,

I am uncomfortable with sweeping generalizations, but I concur that simply trying to interact with the public in first person CAN lead to problems. But I don't think we give them enough credit, nor do we always aid them to understand what's happening.

For example, at the last "Immortal 600," the organizers had costumed docents or guides taking groups around, explaining to them that the participants were in 19th Century time. They accepted that, and no one was either annoyed or alienated. In fact, I could hear them asking the guides questions that indicated they "got it" in ways that worked for both sides. The real test was when they would come into the guards quarters as we attempted to live as if they were not there.

Occasionally I found myself interjecting information in a natural way into my conversation to explain what was happening (without it being obvious or breaking character), or in response to a question directed my way. This worked for both sides, because we didn't have to "step out of character," nor entirely ignore their thirst for knowledge.

And having seen the reaction at LHs, I don't agree that it doesn't work at all. At the 11th NC LH we did at G'burg last Summer, there were several participants doing presentations to the audience, while many of us just lived as soldiers, including doing activities that allowed us to remain in first person while not interacting with the taters (cooking, cleaning our weapons, and most importantly, sleeping :) ).

Like anything else, it's all about the organizing, which includes having a clear idea about what you want to accomplish, both with participants AND the public.

[ephraim_zook]

Re: Third Person Question

Bill,

You have hit upon a decent solution here -- a few souls who are not in first person, interacting with visitors and leaving the rest of the reenactors to do their own thing. The interpreters can act as bridge between the visitors and reenactors and even facilitate communication between the two groups. Indeed if they don't, there is the danger of having the interpreters seen in the role of zoo guide in front of the cage explaining the activities of the monkeys within...

Ron Myzie

[1stMaine]

Re: Third Person Question

Comrades,

I agree very much with both Ron and Bill. I would like to add, that when the two worlds align things can happen which you remember for a long long while.

Some time past, i posted this little scene, but since we are discussing thrid person, and interpretation, perhaps I might be forgiven for retelling it for the benefit of those few who haven't heard it before.

Years ago, I was participating in a nice little CW event in New Hampshire. Not too many of us, and though some tried to stay "in character" for the whole day, many could not. Still, things went quite well, especially with our docent guiding various groups around the area.

In the afternoon, the mail arrived, and the 1st sergeant called the men together to disburse the small pile of letters and packages which had arrived. A group of spectators had arrived about the same time, and were watching with some interest in the scene being played out. One of the lads received a letter from home, and went to sit down by the supply wagon, near where the small crowd of spectators was standing.

The soldier looked at the envelope for a minute, then slowly opened it with his jack knife, carefully setting the envelope aside and spreading the two sheets of it's contents across his legs. After a minute, he turned them over, took off his cap and looked so forlorn and pitiable. A lady standing nearby saw this, and knelt down beside him to ask if there was something in the letter that disturbed him. The soldier hesitated, then, in a soft voice, responded, "I don't know....I can't read". The lady was so moved by this, that she was completely caught up in the moment. She sat down beside the young soldier, and said, "If you like, I'd be happy to read it to you". The soldier gave her a glance, and agreed, and she slowly and carefully read this wonderful letter to him.

In all my years in this hobby, this one scene still stays close to mind. It was completely spontaeneous, and yet so very moving and believeable. despite the complete difference in appearance, here was a scene that could have been straight from our period, a State Agency worker reading to a young soldier. Those nearby were caught up in the moment, and left with a good impression.

To my mind, it goes to show how much of what we do transcends the physical and exists in the mental and spiritual world. Even with modern intrusions, with the willing suspension of disbelief, time and station and even location can be transcended and examined and enjoyed. Of course period clothing and props are important, but they are not always THE important part. Mental preparation and exersize still must trump the physical, for that is how we all exist.

Anyway, my apologies for going on a bit. Some things are just too good, I suspect, to keep to one's self, and demand to be shared. Trusting that this is of some small use to you all, I remain,

respectfully,

[flattop32355]

Re: Third Person Question

But what about interpretive events, either first person or third person? During hours when spectators are present, the ultimate goal can again be summed up pretty easily: to interpret history as successfully as possible to the public. Again, you can debate what that means and there's a massive amount of literature from Tilden on down with different opinions, since there's no single right answer for how to read your visitor, what interpretive method to use, where to compromise on accuracy to keep the visitors intrigued and happy, etc. But communicating history to the public is always there as a guidepost.

But what about the times during interpretive events that the public isn't present, for example evenings, overnight and early mornings?
The visitor part is fun, but after-hours usually seems a combination of modern small talk, gossip and partying (all boring to me), and/or all the stuff I hate about reenactments--camping, eating lousy food and wearing uncomfortable clothes--with none of the fun stuff--which is trying my best to achieve a specific goal, either accuracy, interpretation, or something else.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Concerning interpretive events, it would depend upon the guidelines of the event, along with the preferences of those in your group; if the idea is to remain first person (ie, full immersion), by all means you should. If it is to keep the mood of the period, that may only mean staying with related topics, such as how the day's activities went, whether some commander screwed up, etc. If there are no guidelines for after-hours, it's up to the folks around that particular campfire to decide how they want to proceed, hopefully spending more time doing what they want to do than griping about what some other group might be doing; don't let them spoil your fun while not raining on their parade either. No law says I can't stay period by tuning out the ghetto-blaster three streets over where they are singing, "Show Me The Way To Go Home". I control what I do, not them. They may make it harder to stay focused, but that's all they can do.

Some of the non-period things that often get discussed are not necessarily unrelated to the event's experience. Often, we talk about our comrades, both present and absent, and things that have happened to them in past events, and how they have progressed through the hobby. Along with watching my son interact with other unit members, these are the most enjoyable moments of reenacting for me.